Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Liability centered on the defendant’s failure to stop at a yellow light in violation of the Motor Vehicle Act.

• Plaintiff’s chronic physical and psychological injuries were linked directly to the collision.

• Expert testimony confirmed ongoing disabilities affecting plaintiff’s work and daily life.

• Causation established under the "but for" test, affirming the accident as the injury's cause.

• The court rejected the defendants' arguments regarding failure to mitigate damages.

• Comprehensive damages awarded for non-pecuniary loss, past and future income loss, and future care costs.

Facts of the case

This case arose from a motor vehicle accident on May 14, 2019, at the intersection of 64 Avenue and 152 Street in Surrey, British Columbia. Shafaq Cheema, the plaintiff, was turning left on a green light when the defendant, Komal Pandha, driving a Nissan Rogue, accelerated through a yellow light without stopping, ultimately colliding with the plaintiff’s vehicle. The impact caused significant injuries to Ms. Cheema, including chronic neck, shoulder, and back pain, psychological trauma such as PTSD and depression, cognitive impairments, and loss of functional capacity for work and daily activities.

The evidence included video footage from a traffic camera, testimony from the parties, family members, and multiple expert witnesses. Expert opinions from neurosurgeons, psychiatrists, and occupational therapists unanimously supported the plaintiff’s claims regarding the seriousness and longevity of her injuries. Despite attempts at rehabilitation, the plaintiff was unable to return to her pre-accident work capacity and was forced to abandon her side business providing eyelash installation services.

Court’s findings and decision

The court found Komal Pandha fully liable for the collision. The judge emphasized that the defendant had a clear and sufficient opportunity to stop safely at the yellow light but failed to do so. Applying sections 128 and 129 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the judge determined that the defendant's negligence was the sole cause of the accident. The causation analysis followed the "but for" test, confirming that the plaintiff’s injuries would not have occurred but for the defendant’s breach.

The court rejected the defendants' argument that the plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages, noting that concerns about medication side effects during potential pregnancy were legitimate and medically supported.

In terms of damages, the court awarded substantial compensation, including $225,000 for non-pecuniary damages (pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life), $456,121.44 for past loss of earning capacity, $2,200,000 for future loss of earning capacity, $421,352 for cost of future care, and $45,000 combined for two in-trust awards to family members who provided care. Special damages of $9,081.44 were also awarded. The judgment confirmed that pre-judgment interest and costs would follow unless the parties applied otherwise.

Overall, the court recognized the severe and permanent impact of the accident on Ms. Cheema’s life, her career prospects, and her mental and physical well-being, and awarded damages accordingly.